Posted in | News

Builders: Overdue Proposed Rule On Endangered Species Is Sensible Policy

Two years after a federal court ruled illegal the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listing of the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl under the Endangered Species Act, FWS has proposed to remove the pygmy owl from the endangered species list.

The proposed rule is a victory for sensible policy making, according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).

FWS’ new proposed rule finds that Arizona’s population of cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls does not qualify as a “significant” population and should be taken off the endangered species list. The proposed rule would also render moot an earlier proposal, never finalized, that would have directly affected 1.2 million acres of pygmy owl habitat.

“We support the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed action,” said David F. Wilson, NAHB President and a builder from Ketchum, Idaho. “The delisting of the pygmy owl is based on sound science, not political whim.”

On August 19, 2003, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in a suit brought by NAHB, the Southern Arizona Home Builder Association (SAHBA), and the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona (HBACA), that the pygmy owl listing was illegal. The Court agreed, and found that FWS did not articulate a rational basis for the listing of the pygmy owl, given that the owls were known to exist in far greater numbers in Mexico. The case is known as National Association of Home Builders v. Norton. Surveys conducted by Arizona officials, most recently in 2002, detected 18 pygmy owls in the state.

“Setting aside 1.2 million acres for 18 owls is excessive,” Wilson said. “It is an abuse of government power. This proposed rule is a victory for sensible policy making.”

NAHB economists found that if a 1.2 million-acre habitat designation were to go into effect, construction of new homes would fall by roughly 262 homes per year. The local economy would shrink by $545 million over the next ten years, compared to what it would have been in the absence of the designation. Local government would lose $68.3 million in tax and permit revenue that would have been collected otherwise. In the first year alone, 705 jobs would be lost, growing to about 2,750 over ten years.

Much of the problem is land availability. Though Tucson is surrounded by apparently vacant land, almost all that land is unavailable for housing. It belongs to the State of Arizona, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the military, or tribal reservations. Out of the 9,184 square miles of Pima County, only 75,000 acres of private land remain in the Tucson area and outside the proposed designation. But in the next ten years, Tucson will need 45,000 acres to accommodate new residents.

Tell Us What You Think

Do you have a review, update or anything you would like to add to this news story?

Leave your feedback
Your comment type
Submit

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.